Not many similar period relics are available in museums, save for stone etched slabs.

That is not true.

The dead sea scrolls and the copies of the Septuagint [300 BCE], both predating Christianity and Islam, both being stemmed from different source points - are substantially the same.

That is not true. The Masoretic text has many more similarities than the Septuagint.

Both contain the Noah story; nothing is missing or added. Your inference of 'copying' has no basis.

That is not true.

The Hebrew is the most authentic writings and language possessed by humanity.

That does not make sense. But if it means what I think you ar suggesting, it is not true.

It is an evidence of arguable quantity, that the writings is contemporary of its said period.

That is not true.

All the evidences at hand contradict it.

That is not true.

Please show us another writings which lists names

There are many of these.

as seen in Genesis and deemed as authentic by scholars and archeologists?

That is not true. There is no scholarly or archeological support for any of the early geneologies.

In fact, we have no such books for more than 800 years thereafter!

That is not true.

All we have are stone etched pieces of poems, epitaphs and trade reciepts

That is not true.

and none in the alphabetical mode.

That is not true.

We have no advanced, alphabetical books.

That is not true.

A book being a multi-page continuing narrative.

Do you consider a scroll as "multi page" or one long single page? Are stone or clay tablets pages? What about metal pages? Leather pages? Are you going to say that the only thing you consider to be alphabetical texts are the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the only thing you consider to be pages to be made from are substances that the Dead Sea Scrolls were made from?

This makes it more enigmatic how it has no equivalence.

That is not true.

Thats not bad. Only 14 incorrect and totally unverifiable statements in that post.

At least it is a slight break from you adding words to the Old Testament to try to suit your needs. And twisitng interpretations until they are totally unrecognisable from the Old Testament text you are referring to.

That is getting pretty boring to read.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

They said this of King David, who lived a mere 250 years after Moses. Then there was the Tel Dan discovery - and those so-called scholars have never recovered from their shame.

You have said this a few times in various posts. At one stage there was no evidence of King David, so the scholars assumed there was no King David. The other option would be to assume that King David existed when there was no evidence. Do you see a problem with that? Then after the discovery of the Tel Dan Stelle, there was a fair bit of controversy with regards to the translation of the text. The concensus is now that the words 'Israel' and 'house of david' do appear on the Stelle. As this is new evidence, the opinions of the scholars changed. There is no shame in waiting until there is evidence before supporting a position. There is also no shame in changing your position after new evidence is found. It is called intellectual honesty. I know you are unfamiliar with the concept but try to understand it.

There is more evidences [as opposed hard proof] of Moses than Jesus and every name listed in the NT!

More evidence of Moses than every name listed in the NT? What about Ramesses? Or Augustus Caesar? If you want a religious figure with more evidence you cant go past Sathya Sai Baba the Hindu mystic. He has hundreds of thousands of living people who testify to witnessing his miracles. That is hundreds of thousands of contemporary eyewitness accounts of events such as levitation (both indoors and outdoors), bilocation, physical disappearances, changing granite into sugar candy, changing water into another drink, changing water into gasoline, producing objects on demand, changing the color of his gown while wearing it, multiplying food, healing acute and chronic diseases, appearing in visions and dreams, making different fruits appear on any tree hanging from actual stems, controlling the weather, physically transforming into various deities and physically emitting brilliant light. (Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba)

this is not some bronze age book that is a copy of a copy (of a copy of a copy etc) with multiple different versions. These are eyewitness accounts.

Sathya Sai Baba beats Moses and Jesus combined on this count.

Here's more what atheists don't say of the Hebrew bible:

Not just athiests disagree with your position. Members of every other faith, athiests, agnostics and even your fellow Jews disagree with a lot of what you say. Its not just Athiests verses the Hebrew Bible, it is IamJosephs unverified, wild assertions vs pretty much everyone else in the world. You often seem to suggest or imply in your posts that your claims are supported by scholars or evidence. Most often your claims are based on strange and nonsensical interpretations of biblical texts or contain arguements that are supported by 'facts' that are unsupported, unverified, unsourced, not supported by scholars and professionals in the field or plain old totally wrong.

for example -

It is the first alphabetical book; it introduced the universe as finite [there was a 'beginning']; the world turns by Hebrew laws exclusively [none come from any other source!]; Evolution comes from Genesis [the first listing of life form categories]; we have no 'NAME' older﻿ than Adam; the oldest active calendar is the Hebrew [5772 years]; it introduced Creationism...

All of this is wrong. Not one of these claims is supported by the evidence. Evidence that has been supplied to you in various threads. Evidence that can be found with a simple google search. All of it is your personal opinion. It is not based on any factual evidence.Not only that but all of it contradicted by real factual evidence. I know this wont stop you ranting and raving because you are a fundamentalist lunatic. You have no desire to be cured of your lunacy. Other readers just need to know that what you are saying is not supported by evidence and is the opinion of one, single fundamentalist.

...and Monotheism...

Great, so Judaism may have introduced the idea of one god. Is one god better than many gods? A lot of people hold the position that no gods at all are better than one god. Why do you think coming up with monotheism is an achievement?

...world and universe altering equations...

Less than half of the population of the world belongs to one of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). More than half of the population of the world belongs to a different religious group or accepts no religion at all. You are correct in saying that the Old Testament has changed the world, but for the majority of people, it has been a negative change. Congratulations. The universe has not been impacted in any way by the Old Testament. This claim is ridiculous. Why do you think that the Hebrew laws changed the universe? The important ones are seen elsewhere at earlier times eg The Code of Hammurabi or developed independantly of the influence of Judaism eg. early Chinese law codes, Native American laws etc. How has any of your claims changed any part of the universe outside of this one planet?

...over 70% of the Hebrew bible is scientifically proven.

Pure conjecture. Not only do you not know that this is true, there is no way for you to know if this could be true. I have questioned you on it before and you have not been able to support the claim.

Can you provide the complete list of facts that are in the Old Testament? This would be the starting point to establishing what percentage of the facts have been scientifically proven. You dont have this vital piece of information. This claim is pure fantasy. You imagining something does not make it a fact.

A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise! - a lie.

You dont seem to have a problem with lying. Stating claims as facts without having any way of even knowing if they are facts is intellectual dishonesty. Making claims that a demonstratively is the very definition of lying. This is a common habit of yours.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

Notice how in your post you make a whole heap of claims with no supporting evience of any type. The only thing this suggests is that there is no supporting evidence.

Yes, I do see a big problem with those scholars. There was loads of evidence [tho no hard proof]; their pronouncements were short sighted and it ignored blatant indicators; they had no merit in making their statements and using terms as myth. How wrong were they!

Loads of evidence prior to the discovery of the stelle of the existence of King David? Lets take a look at that claim -

To most Israelis it is axiomatic that the celebrations for the 3,000th anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by King David mark a real and tangible event; but this is far from certain. The biblical account of the capture of the city is the only one we have, and in the opinion of most modern scholars, the Bible is not an entirely reliable historical document. Corroborating evidence is required, and some indeed exists; but it is not conclusive. When all the available information has been assembled, the most that can be said is that there was probably an Israelite ruler called David, who made Jerusalem his capital sometime in the tenth century bce. However, the precise date cannot be determined, and consequently there is no way of knowing exactly when the anniversary falls.

And this part specifically about evidence for King David -

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.

So according to the State of Israel, until the finding of the Stelle there was "no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David". What constitutes the "loads of evidence" that you claim existed that the State of Israel was unaware of?

The scholars, including Jewish scholars had no evidence of the existence of King David. Scholars with no evidence of the existence of a person cannot honestly claim he existed. Some scholars can advise that they BELIEVE he existed becaue of the teachings of their faith. However, until the Stelle was found, no scholar, from any faith could say that evidence existed to support the exitence of King David. There was merit in their statements that King David did not exist. There was no evidence to say that he did exist.

There is no shame in being genuinely wrong - but there was too fast a gun off the hip here; obviously agenda based and biased. The so called scholars did not just say there was no proof; they ignored loads of evidences and indicators and used words such as total myth. You are white washing their unscholarly behaviour.

Agenda based and biased? What agenda is the State of Israel pushing when they report that until the finding of the Stelle there was "no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David". Why would the State of Israel be biased against Judaism when the report that until the location of the Stelle there was "no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David". The so called scholars you are referring to include Jewish archeologists. They did not ignore evidence. There was no evidence to ignore.

I referred to the figures of Christianity, such as Jesus, the apostles, Mary, a Roman trial, Judas, etc - there is no proof of any of these figures, despite this was in relatively a far more advanced, modern time when writings was commonplace. Yet you target the Hebrew bible, where some 70% is already proven of a most ancient period - why is that?

So when you said this -

quote:There is more evidences [as opposed hard proof] of Moses than Jesus and every name listed in the NT!

what you actually menat to say was -

There is more evidences [as opposed hard proof] of Moses than Jesus and every name listed in the NT apart from all of the names that refute this statement.

Gotcha.

Also, I dont target the Hebrew Bible or even mention it anywhere in that quote.

Not my call; I have not researched this.

So you have not researched one of the most famous Hindu mystics that ever lived. A mystic who outperformed Jesus in regards to miracles with many current, living eyewitneses. You are unaware of this man, yet seem to believe you have made an educated decision with regards to your faith. He out performs Moses and Jesus combined. I get the feeling from most of your posts that if you dont know about something, it does not exist.

If you can evidence a 3,200 year figure as with David anyplace else in a writings - I will appreciate it. But I see this as quite difficult - aside from the Pharoahs very few examples are possible!

So aside from the many pharoahs names recorded that are older than 1200 BCE. So you have something that refutes your position and you are asking for another set of names that refute your position? The list of pharoah names refutes your position but you dont count them because???

How many different ways would you like your point refuted before you are willing to accept it?

I will give you a whole list of names. (It also included geneologies, nations, towns, cities, rivers and the word day)

The Sumerian Kinglist has dozens of names on it. There are not one, not two or three but sixteen known copies containing sections of this list. The oldest four sources used when discussing this list date from 2000BCE, 1817 BCE, 1712 BCE, 1250 BCE.

Without disrespect of any revered figures, there is none more revered than Moses: by period of time; impact; and cencus [2B Christians; 1.5B Muslims; 14M Jews]. Do the maths - this beats JC, MO, Buddha, all others.

Nice attempt to shift the goal posts. My comment was about evidence for proof of existence, not who was revered the most. Lots of kids love Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, dorathy the dinosaur etc. This does not prove that they exist.

How many contemporary eyewitness accounts do you have for any of the actions of Moses?

Here are 59 photographs of Sathya Sai Baba.

Can you provide any evidence that proves the existence of Moses that comes close to a photograph?

There are only two possibilities here. Monotheism is one of them; many gods are not one of them. Not bad!

So according to you there are two possibilities. Monotheism is one, polytheism is not. So that leaves another possibility???

There are actually three possibilities.

1. Monotheism2. polytheism3. No gods at all.

My questions is what makes monotheism better than the other two options. You did not address that question. You types a sentence that does not really make sense, then you congratualated yourself for it.

The negative stuff can only be pointed at two religions, both in contradiction of each other, and who have commited the gravest crimes throughout their history. Nothing to do with the Hebrew bible which measures all equally and by their deeds only, giving none special treatment, regardless of their beliefs. This is not a negative thing.

Oh, ok, so the Jews have not had any negative effect on anyone. Any suffering going on anywhere in the world will have "nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible".

How exactly are Christianity and Islam to blame for this Israeli bulldozer destroying civilian homes? -

How exactly are Christianity and Islam to blame for these Israeli citizens, including child assaulting a palistinian woman?

How exactly are Christianity and Islam to blame for this child being shot?

Your faith is to blame for the things occuring in those images.

Hamurabi is post Mosaic and steeped in head bashing dieties. The world turns by the 613 Hebrew laws - exclusively. Sounds unreasonable, but check it out.

quote:The Code of Hammurabi was one of several sets of laws in the ancient Near East.

The code of laws was arranged in orderly groups, so that everyone who read the laws, would know what was required of them. Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.

Is four law codes written up to 700 years before Moses was born covering all of the major laws sufficient to refute your statement that the Hebrew laws were the first laws and that "the world turns by the 613 Hebrew laws - exclusively."?

How many different ways do you have to be proven wrong before you will admit it? Are you now going to claim that the only real laws were written in Hebrew supposedly by a guy whose name starts with an 'M' to be real laws?

Outside of the FX miracles, almost all the historical items are proven or evidenced. No scripture can match this.

hmmm. it seems you are trying to distance yourself from your own claim here.

Let me refresh your memory as to what you actually said (and have said more than once)

quote:over 70% of the Hebrew bible is scientifically proven

and

quote:Yet you target the Hebrew bible, where some 70% is already proven of a most ancient period - why is that?

Now answer the question. How many facts are there in the Old Testament. In order to give a mathmatical percentage you need two numbers.

In this case, you would need 'a' - the total number of facts and 'b' - the total number of facts that have been scientifically verified to be true.

You have two choices, either supply those two figures or admit that you are making things up.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

You are unwilling or unable to provide any sourced evidence other than the Old Testament.

Your views often contradict all known historical information and regularly defy logic and common sense.

Your interpretation of the Old Testament is most often contradictory to the interpretation of scholars including Jewish religious scholars.

Your views of Jewish history are most often contradictory to the views of scholars, historians, archaeologists etc including opposition to official historical information supplied by the government of Israel.

You dont seem to be able to tell the difference between conjecture, unverifiable assertions, random guessing and facts. You believe that if you say it, it becomes a fact. You believe that if you say it many times, not only is it a fact but you have also provided evidence.

Your problems with English comprehension lead you to answer questions with replies that seem to have little connection to what is asked.

You regularly 'shift the goalposts', refuse to answer or simply ignore direct questions, you refuse to address or simply ignore information that refutes your position, you claim no information exists that could refute your position in replies to posts that contain that exact information.

Your religious fundamentalism make it nearly impossible for you to engage in intellectually honest debate.

For these reasons I will no longer engage in debates with you unless you reply to one of my posts or directly refer to one of my posts.

I hope that ignoring you is more effective at highlighting the problems that exist in your posts than discussing the issues with you. It seems that debating with you gives the impression that what you are saying should be taken seriously.

I have leant a lot about Judaism and the Old Testament in my research so this has not been a total waste of my time.

Cheers,

BT

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

*I started this post before the verse issue had been resolved so some information is repeated*

You guys have been having a bit of a disagreement about what Deut 13:1 states.

The verse that IMJ is quoting is actually Deut 12:32 in the King James Bible.

In some Hebrew versions, the quote he is giving is indeed 13:1.

The verse IMJ is quoting is not Deut 13.1 in the King James Bible. I can understand why the problem arose though. Considering that the thread IMJ is currently in is called 'What the KJV Bible says about Noah Flood'. Not 'What the Hebrew text IamJoseph uses says about Noah Flood'.

The following verses also discuss not adding or removing anything - (NIB, I am pretty sure t aligns with KJV)

quote:Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Joshua 1:7 Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.

Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Ezekiel 44:5 The LORD said to me, "Son of man, look carefully, listen closely and give attention to everything I tell you concerning all the regulations regarding the temple of the LORD. Give attention to the entrance of the temple and all the exits of the sanctuary.

As IamJoseph has stated in multiple posts it would break holy law to add or subtract from the text...

quote:the Jews were right of it. Only that which cannot be added to or subtracted from is the real mcoy.

...however, there are multiple different versions of the text and no one knows which version is correct. It is all well and good to say that the text must not change. But if this is true, why are there so many different texts? The main versions include : Alexandrian Septuagint, Vaticanus Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch, Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls).

With so many different texts known, it is a bit hard to presume that any one of them is the 100% accurate text. It is a bit presumptuous to state as fact that one or any of the currently known texts is an unaltered copy. The actual, original text may be lost forever and we will only ever have altered copies.

As to what the KJB says about the flood -

quote:Gen 6:7 - And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 - Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.

The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark.

quote:Gen 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The KJB uses the word 'house', the Old Testament uses household.

IamJoseph is correct in saying that God instructed Noah to enter the ark with his household. Using the English definition of household in this context, it would mean that he would be taking himself, his family and his possesions. This could include all of his domestic animals.

IamJoseph is not correct when he suggests that this means that Noah is to ignore the previously given commands to take two of every living thing.

In preparation for the flood God said 'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark' (Gen 6:19). And God told Noah to take his household into the ark 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark'(Gen 7:1). The second command does not cancel out the first. Both commandments can be followed. Two of every animal on Earth and all of Noahs household were to enter the ark.

The Documentary Hypothesesis discusses the different authors of the Old Testament. The suspected reason there are clean and unclean laws introduced out of place is because two different authors at different times wrote about the flood. When two different versions of the ame story are combined, there is bound to be some confusion. The part about the laws would have to have been written by someone who was aware of the laws, why else would it be there?

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : Advising that some info had already been covered before my post.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

There is no differences. Some writings are embellished during second and third generation translations [Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English].

You state that there are no differences? No differences between the Alexandrian Septuagint, Vaticanus Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls)? Well, just let me know which one you believe is the 100% accurate version of the original text handed down by Moses. When I know that, I can let you know the opposing positions and the differences. Which ones were embellished? A list will do, just list which of the currently accepted versions are embellished and which ones are accurate.

The DS Scrolls. which are in mid-ancient Hebrew, is substantially the same as today's Hebrew bibles...

The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. According to the intereet, there is no such language as 'mid ancient Hebrew'. When you tell me which version you believe is the correct one, I can tell you where it differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, how do you know the Dead Sea Scrolls are correct? They could be just another altered version. The original story may be lost, there is no way for you to know.

...Even then, there are variant interpretations of some passages, including the Noah story, even among Hebrew speaking peoples. My reading is based solely on the block meanings of verses and how they align and interact with each other.

Your interpretations often rest soley on a particular word. In this thread you are resting your case on an interpretation of the qord household. So a missing/altered/included word or phrase can make a lot of difference.

my claim - The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

your reply - No, it does not say that.

Gen 6:1 - And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in the words 'on the face of the Earth? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:5 - And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in the words 'in the earth? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:7 - And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in the words 'the face of the earth? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included in these words. Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

In this verse, what part of the Earth is not included when God 'looked upon the earth'? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, when God tells Noah that 'the earth is filled with violence' and that he will destroy the Earth, what part of the Earth is not included? Or does it mean all of the Earth?

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, when God says he is going to bring flood waters upon the earth, which parts of the earth are excluded? When he says that every living thing that breaths, under heaven, every thing that is in the earth, what will survive by being on the parts of the Earth that are not flooded?

God said that every animal on Earth would die in Gen 6:17. How would his flood accomplish this if it was only a localised flood?

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

God told Noah that a male and female of every living thing of flesh shall enter the ark. This appears to be where you seem to think God does not mean every living thing as he says, but just the domestic animals owned by Noah. However, in Gen 6:12 when God refers to 'all flesh', he refers to all living things on the entire Earth, then in Gen 6:13 when God refers to 'all flesh' he refers to all living things on the entire earth, then in Gen 6:17 when god refers to 'all flesh' he refers to every living thing on the earth, then in 6:19 when he says 'all flesh' you seem to think that he actually does not mean all flesh. He does not mean most flesh. He does not even mean much flesh at all. You seem to think that God is using the exact same words to refer to a very small amount of animals owned by Noah.

You say that -

quote:Here, the only meaning of 'all flesh of the earth' is 'all flesh of the earth - of Noah's possessions and families';

But that is not what the text states.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

All flesh that has the breath of life under heaven. Did ll of the other animals on the earth no breath? What part of the earth is not under heaven? It does not state anything about Noahs household until later in the text and that is instructions on who and what should enter. The text says two of every living animal will enter the arc and the text states that Noahs household will enter the ark. One refers to animals, the other refers to Noahs family. The text is very clear, both groups enter the ark.

When one examines the Hebrew calendar, it is continueos from Adam to Moses, spanning some 2,500 years, with no breaks of geneology or missed epochs of time. The flood is also reported by other nations which are not derivitives of Noah.

Not only is this information incorrect, it is also totally irrelevant and contradicts your own position. Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood? The following webpage discusses flood myths from every habited continent. Why would these nations discuss a flood if it was a localised flood as you claims? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) . That argument works against your claim.

The reading of the people the whole earth was consumed is also seen in the story of Lot when Sodom was destroyed - they also thought the whole earth was destroyed. The Noah text is describing how things appeared to Noah, which is authentic for its period - it predates Abraham and Lot. One must imagine themselves in the same situation, when they would have never ventured out of their village all their lives and would not have known another country even existed.

Is this text not divinely inspired? Is not God the real author and Moses the scribe? Are you suggesting that God at the time had the intellect of a bronze age nomad? Also, some of the statements are attributed to God himself.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

This is not how things appeared to Noah. This is a direct statement made by God. It is not Noah describing how things appeared to him. It is God saying what he intends to do. Gen 6:7, 17, 19 are also direct statements made by God, not Noah. As far as the stories go, God knows everything and is everywhere, so I would think he would know about the next village and other nations he created.

For me, the most confusing issue is how the human population is only accountable from approximately this round about time - not 100's of 1000s of years. But this also aligns equally with Adam and cannot be directed at Noah: the time margin is too small between these two names.

You will have to tell me which time period you think this occured as the various versions differ. And what do you mean by accountable? What aligns with Adam? What time margin? In fact, have another shot at that whole paragraph because it makes little sense and it seems to be off topic.

Also, if the flood was just local, why not just tell Noah to head up the road a little way where the flood will not be occuring? This would be a much better idea. The verse would read something like this -

Gen 6: 18. And God sayeth to Noah 'no, why would I ask you to do that?'

Gen 6: 19 And the Lord Cammandeth to Noah 'head up the road. Travel for three days and make camp in the hills.' He continued 'While you are away I will bring forth a mighty flood and drowneth all the people and animals that live right near your house.'

Gen 6: 20 'But God' sayeth Noah 'why are you so pissed of at the animals around my house, why kill them?'

Gen 6: 21 And the Lord sayeth 'I work in mysterious ways'

Surely this would be easier than building a huge fucking ark. If the flood was local it would have made a lot more sense for Noah to go somewhere else.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : adding

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

my question to you - You state that there are no differences? No differences between the Alexandrian Septuagint, Vaticanus Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Latin Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran Texts (Dead Sea Scrolls)?

Your reply - Correct. Differences of such a volumous set of books, over 1000's of years, which relate to minor grammar, word interpretations and ndex numbers are not differences. These were times when printing and photcopying never existed. No real differences in 'laws' exist - these are 613 and remain so.

You seem to be wavering in your position here. You have gone from claiming that there are no differences in the text. But you wont say which version of the text you follow. Is this because you are concerned that I will point out how wrong you are? You have reduced your statement from a bold no differences down to a weak 'no real differences in 'laws''. This seems to be a bit of a habit of yours. You make a bold statement, someone tells you it is bullshit, you water down and/or alter your statement, someone tells you it is still bullshit, you weaken an/or alter your statement further, etc etc until it is not even close to your original statement or you just start ignoring the issue. Why dont you save yourself some time and find out if what you are about to say is true before you say it?

Your claim that there are only 'minor grammar, word interpretations and index numbers are not differences' is flat out wrong. For examples, can you spot any differences between these three versions of Genesis 4:7

quote:Septuagint If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.

MasoreticIs it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it.

Latin VulgateIf thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.

Your assertion that there are no differences between the various versions is wrong.

There is no confusion what I meant by mid ancient Hebrew; this only relates to curcive or the Hebrew style 2000 years ago, which is varied in design from ancient and modern Hebrew.

I know that you believe that what appears inside your head is known fact. Your choices of hebrew written text are paleo Hebrew, Aramaic and Hebrew, there is also the Samaritan alphabet that was an offshoot of paleo hebrew. There are variants of these scripts like Rashi script, cursive hebrew and sta''M. Of all of the texts that exist, there is no 'mid ancient hebrew'. A google search of the term 'mid ancient hebrew' gives results. However, the results are all your posts on this forum or quotes of your posts. It appears that this text exists in one location and that is in the imagaination of IamJoseph.

Absolutely not. While the term household/possessions is embedded in a pivotal verse which cannot be disregarded, I pointed out a host of factors which align only with a regional flood and domestic animals. In fact, your charge upon me should be reversed on resting only on expressionisms which are not credible in their interpretations. The reason none have proof of a flood in Tasmania, Korea, India, Moscow, Peru - is because your interpretation is in error; mine is not.

Remove the claim about household and your arguement falls to pieces. No one is disregarding your arguement. The text states the flood covered the area under heaven. It was designed to kill every living thing that drew breath. That would mean it would need to cover the entire Earth. You ignore all of the actual text and use unique interpretations to support your own position. Also, I provided an entire webpage showing flood myths from all over the world. Just because you choose to selectively read information and ignore information supplied to you does not mean that the information does not exist.

You forget, in the creation chapter, there is no precedence of nations, countries and life forms. The term 'earth' can apply to the planet, a small region and the ground you are standing upon right now - depending on its context.

I supplied 8 verses using the word earth. You had an answer for one of those. I take it that this means thaat the other 7 effectively refute your position so you choose to ignore them.

Again, the same error and mishap. You cannot align Noah with the creation chapter as your evidence or example. You cannot disregard Noah's arc is limited to 'THOU BRING INTO THE ARC' and 'TO KEEP THEM ALIVE WITH THEE'

Genesis is the creation chapter. Why cant I align Noah with Genesis? Seeing as though Noah and the flood story are in Genesis and all??? The two phrases do not support your position or refute mine.

Absolutely, 'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house - its not a free floating eon dangling in the universe, but a verse in the same story. You cannot connect it with the creation chapter. Earth in creation refers to corporeal generic matter - when nothing identifiable yet existed; in Noah's story earth refers to the ground Noah is standing upon!

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, God is telling knowing that he is going to destroy all flesh, removing them from the earth. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is saying he is going to destroy and remove from the earth Noah, his family and his possessions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, God is telling Noah that he is going to flood the earth. According to you, this means he is going to cause a localised flood in Noahs region. The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

In this verse, according to you, God is telling Noah two of each sort of animal 'all flesh' should go into the ark. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is telling Noah that two of each of his animals can head into the ark.

Hold on a second. That does not make sense. According to your logic, God tells Noah he is going to flood his region and kill him, his family and all of his animals. But then God tells Noah that he can take some of his animals onto the ark and himself.

Why does this not make sense?

It makes no sense because your arguement is fataly flawed.

Not from the POV the calendar does not allow for epochial time absences!

Not only does this not make sense but I am pretty sure it is off topic and irrelevant.

my question - Why would other nations report the flood if it was a local flood?

Your reply - They would report and know of a major regional upheaval; there will be impacts to the surrounding nations; refugees, etc. The point is, there would be no other nations if this was a global flood - Egypt would display a period when it never existed for a time. This is not the case!

The website i supplied (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html) tells of flood stories on every habited continent. Do you think that the Australian Indigenous people and the North American Indians came up with their flood myth because Jewish refugees told them about it? Your other arguement advising that there would be no other nations if there was a global flood is one of the common arguements disputing the Noah flood story.

The text correctly and authentically describes peoples' reactions as per the context of the period and its impact. It says Lot's two daughters genuinely believed they and their father were the only three people left on the whole earth; but we know for sure this was not the case; and that the destruction of Sodom was a regional one. EGGZACTLY the same factor applies in the Noah story. You are focusing on deviant views and ignoring the real message of the text.

So when the text says something like this -

Gen 6:7 - And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

are you suggesting that this is not a quote from God? According to you, these phrases were written by Moses under the direct instruction from God. Is this text not divinely inspired in your view?

Was the Pentateuch the unaltered word of God or not? You cant say it is when it suits you then say it is interpretive when it does not suit you.

In regards to this verse -

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

you said -

It is describing Noah's reaction. The rule of interpretation is, 'God speaks in the language of the people' - not in surpreme math and physics beyond the peoples' comprehension. Its like an adult talking to a child; the text is incredibly authentic. Understand Noah's mindset - there was no other countries to refer to with Noah; that region was the entire earth. You won't find words like scud missilles or tomatoes in this text - guess why!

So, according to your view, the bronze age people of the time have altered the word of God to make sure it made sense to the other people of their time. If this is the case, then we cannot take any commandment, instruction or law attributed to God as the actual word of God. If all of the text has been altered in order to make sense to bronze age people, then we cannot take any of it as truth. Any part of it could be altered.

The verse does not describe Noahs reaction at all. It is a quote. It begins with the words "And God said unto Noah".

It refers to historically recorded people and events, namely speech endowed humans. We have no NAME older than Adam; the period is 6000 years; the population accounts only for this period. If, for example, Australian natives are 60K years old - which I reject - their population would number more than a trillion! We learn also, the bogus premise there was no writings is false; a name is recallable without writings; the population count also proves this.

All of this is off topic. Most of it is also unsupported bullshit. Pretty standard IamJoseph ravings.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

DB? I hope you dont think I am Dawn Bertot. My posts are usually pretty lucid so it should not be hard to tell the difference.

I do agree with your interpretation of the text. I am an athiest so it is an exercise in comprehension for me. I dont have any vested interest one way or the other. I just read the text and describe what it actually says.

That explains why all the nations have a flood story.

The division of the land after the flood and the scattering of the people explains how the people and animals got to all the different places they were found.

All the dry land being in one place prior to the flood is what accounts for the idea that all the land mass was in one place at one time and so it was called Pangea.

These ideas sound pretty good on the surface. But there are lots of problems if you start to dig a bit. For example, lots of nations have a flood story but they are often from vastly different time periods and last for different amounts of time. Also, their flood stories are told by survivers and there is rarely mention of any arks. There are also archeological, geological, evolutionary etc issues with the idea that Pangea existed before the flood, then split after a flood.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

It has been 15 years since I read it in high school so I dont really get the reference...

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

I stand by my view. There is firstly no difference in the laws [the primal factor here], and there is only nominal translationary impacts in delivering the textual meaning; new generations centuries apart express it according to their cultures and vernacular . This can be seen today when one translates a story, poem or song from a different language. Take for example all the three translations you gave above and the one below. It is clear the fundamental point is the same:

This is bullshit. You are shifting the goal posts. you are intellectually dishonetst. The laws you are saying are 'the primal factor here' are in fact irrelevant. If you do believe that your preffered version of the Old Testament is the accurate word quoted by God and set down by Moses, then start a thread with that claim. If you know you are full of shit, pretend you did not read this and hope it goes away. That seems to be what you do when someone calls you on your bullshit.

Who ignored the verse about Noah's household, me or you? How does it align with all the earth as per your reading - how did you factor it in? In fact you did not! The terms 'all the earth under heaven' can only be read as 'all the earth under heaven - in Noah's region'. There is no grammatical contradiction here; there is with your reading!

I am not ignoring the verse about Noahs household. Are you being intellectually dishonest here or are you a fucking idiot? I covered this issue extensively in Message 287 -

quote:The text clearly states that God will flood the entire Earth.

The text clearly states that Noah must take two of every living thing (of flesh) onto the ark.

The text clearly states that Noah and all of his house goes into the ark.

quote:Gen 7:1 - And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

The KJB uses the word 'house', the Old Testament uses household.

IamJoseph is correct in saying that God instructed Noah to enter the ark with his household. Using the English definition of household in this context, it would mean that he would be taking himself, his family and his possesions. This could include all of his domestic animals.

IamJoseph is not correct when he suggests that this means that Noah is to ignore the previously given commands to take two of every living thing.

In preparation for the flood God said 'And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark' (Gen 6:19). And God told Noah to take his household into the ark 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark'(Gen 7:1). The second command does not cancel out the first. Both commandments can be followed. Two of every animal on Earth and all of Noahs household were to enter the ark.

Noah does not relate to creation of the universe or the earth. It deals with a story of its time only. Earth has a different meaning when aligning this with a farmer and a cosmologist. Earth in Ch. 1 relates to generic earth; not what a famer calls the earth of his land.

I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about here. Are you trying to create a red herring? At no stage have I quoted from or referred to Genesis chapter 1 or the creation narrative. I have only quoted from chapter 6 or 7 in relation to this issue. I you trying to deliberately mislead people reading this by creating a fabricated arguement?

quote:Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

This verse states that God looked upon the earth and saw that all flesh had corrupted his way. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So the flesh that god was reffering to in this verse as corrupt is Noah, his family and his possesions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

In this verse, God is telling knowing that he is going to destroy all flesh, removing them from the earth. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is saying he is going to destroy and remove from the earth Noah, his family and his possessions including his domestic animals.

Gen 6:17 - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

In this verse, God is telling Noah that he is going to flood the earth. According to you, this means he is going to cause a localised flood in Noahs region. The aim of this flood is to destroy all flesh. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is going to flood Noahs local area in order to destroy Noah, his family and all of his domestic animals.

Gen 6:19 - And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

In this verse, according to you, God is telling Noah two of each sort of animal 'all flesh' should go into the ark. According to your logic, "'all flesh' must be aligned with Noah's house". So God is telling Noah that two of each of his animals can head into the ark.

You made a rambling attempt at a reply to one of these (Gen 6:12) with this -

It does not relate to the whole earth; Noah and his house/community/village/region is the subject matter, qualified and made conditional in the text you have disregarded. When I pointed out the size of the arc as applying only to Noah and his possessions, a rambling array of posts disputing what a cubit measure is followed! As if a set of cubits can equal an arc to contain billions of life forms can be justified?!

So according to your logic, this verse....

Gen 6:12 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

...refers to Noahs household. So it was Noahs household that was corrupt. All flesh in Noahs household was corrupt. That would be Noah, Noahs family, Noahs possessions and Noahs animals. According to you, 'all flesh' in this verse refers to Noah, his family and his animals. And 'the earth' refers to Noahs local region.

In the very next verse -

Gen 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

According to you, 'all flesh' in this verse refers to Noah, his family and his possesions. And 'the earth' refers to Noahs local region.

So what is God talking about here -

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God says here that he intends to kill man who he has created. According to you, God intends to kill only Noahs household (Noah, his family and domestic animals). God states that he is repentent for making them. According to your logic, God is telling Noah that he is going to kill him and he regrests making him.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

According to you, this verse states that only Noahs region was corrupt and filled with violence. According to your logic, God is looking at only Noahs local region and seeing that it was corrupt. According to you, 'all flesh' mentioned in this verse reffers to Noahs household. So God looked at Noah and saw that Noah, his family and his domestic animals were corrupted.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

According to you, God is telling Noah that the end of all flesh has come. So God is telling Noah that the end has come for Noah, his family and his domestic animals. God tells Noah that he will be flooding his local region and will destroy it.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

According to you, God is saying here that he will bring flood waters to Noahs region (the earth) in order to destroy Noah, his family and his domestic animals (all flesh, Noahs household). God states he will be destroying everything that has the breath of life that exists under heaven. If this is true, then all of the other people and animals alive at that time were not breathing/alive and existed in some other place other than the Earth (under heaven).

See how using your logic makes no fucking sense whatsoever?

Its easy.

God told Noah he was going to flood the entire Earth because he was unhappy about how things were going. This is what the text actually says.

Gen 6: 5,6,75 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

God told Noah what he planned to do and that he would save him because he was OK. This is what the text actually sats -

Gen 6: 8,9 & Gen 6:13

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

God told him to make an ark

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

God again states he will flood the Earth and kill every living thing on it.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

God tells Noah to gather his household -

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

God also tells Noah to take 2 of every living creature onto the ark. Notice that this verse starts with the word 'and'. So God tells Noah to take his household AND the animals onto the ark.

Gen 6: 19,2019 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come

The God tells Noah to take enough food for his household and the animals. Notice that this verse also starts with the word 'and' making it the third task issued by Giod.

Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

The final verse states that Noah performed these three tasks.

Gen 6:22Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

That is what the text says. It does not matter if it is unbelievable or that there is not any physical evidence of a flood. Most likely this is because there was no global flood and this story is an exagerated myth. But this is not a debate about the evidence to support a flood. This thread is about what the KJB says about the flood of Noah. The above quotes are what the text actually state. It includes Noahs household mentioned in chapter 7 in a sensible, practical and rational manner that is supported by the text. It is not being ignored.

ICANT has asked you to define some terms on several occasions and you have yet to do this.

How about you do that and add these -

What does 'the earth' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis.

What does 'all flesh' refer to in chapter 6 of Genesis

Monotheism was a universe and God changer, hated by divine man kings. This is because people had an intrinsic notion of monotheism's irrefutable veracity, yet they disdained it because it impinged on their inculcated beliefs. The Hebrew version is not subject to changes - it speaks of an unknowable and unfathomable God, so how can one change that which cannot be defined?

More grandstanding. Your arm must get sore from the amount of time you spend patting yourself on the back. It must be hard work dealing with how awsome your faith is. All of this is irrelevant bullshit.

Monotheism did not change the universe or any gods. How did monotheism change any part of the universe outside this one planet? How were any other gods changed by monotheism? Does your faith not state that there are no other gods? How could monotheism change gods that it does not support the existence of?

You may regard the population count as unsupported. I see it as pivotally impacting. Do the math - the pop count is unbiased and absolutely supportive in the Noah story.

More bullshit. You have made it very clear in other threads that you have no idea how population demographics work. If you really do believe that the population of Australia would be "more than a trillion" in 60 000 years, then start a thread with that claim. If you do know that it is a bullshit claim and you dont know what you are talking about, ignore this bit of the post. A ten year olf would be able to very simply show you whay you are wrong with regards to this claim.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

A lot of arguments seem to be attempts to jam this story into histroical, archaeological, geographical etc history.

I look at the text and see lots of things that dont make any sense. I dont try to make up any strange and unusual stories or try to bend grammar and logic to try to explain these problems. I dont think the story needs to make any sense because it is just a story.

I dont complain when I see the coyote builds a machine that defies physics to catch the roadrunner. I just enjoy the cartoon.

This thread was about what the KJB said about the flood.

The text may not state Earth (with a capital E) reffering to the planet using the noun. However, there are many parts of the text that seem to refer to the entire Earth.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

If this 'earth' refers to a region, then God regrets creating the men in this region only?

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

If 'earth' refers to a region, then God plans to destroy all men and animals in a small region only. And he regrests creating all of the men and animals in that region only.

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

If Earth refers to a region, then only that region is corrupt and only that region was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

If Earth refers to a region, then only that region is corrupt and all flesh in that region was corrupt.

Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

If Earth refers to a region, then God is telling Noah his region is filled with violence and he plans to destroy it.

This is all plausible until -

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

This statement seems to be going a bit overboard for a regional flood. If the words 'the earth' means only Noahs hood in this verse then God is being really specific about what dies. he is going to destroy all flesh. He is going to destroy all flesh that has the breath of life. Then he says he is going to destroy all flesh under heaven. Would 'under heaven' not refer to all of the Earth? What part of the Earth is not under heaven?

As well as that, we have the destruction of Sodom. IamJoseph seemed to be using this as upport for his arguement but I could not work out why. It seems to do the exact opposite. Here are the verses discussing the destruction of Sodom. This is God destroying a small region and allowing a small party to escape. That would mean that this chapter should have the same or at least similar terminology.

Keep an eye out for the times that 'the earth' is mentioned to describe the small region being destroyed. Also keep an eye out for all of the times that it is mentioned that all living things or all men of the earth.

Gen 19: 12-2912And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

17And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

18And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD:

19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:

20Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

21And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.

22Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

27And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:

28And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

29And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

This seems like a very different story. Considering this story is a tale of God destroying a small region, it should at least be similar to the story of Noah if it is a tale of destroying a small region. God does not mention Lots 'household' in this story, he just tells him to get his family together. Why not tell lot to gather two of every animal? Wont Lot need these things too? It only makes sense to gather the animals if it is necessary to repopulate the world with the animals. Why did God not mention 'the earth' anywhere when talking about the region he was about to destroy? In the flood of Noah story, chapter 6, earth is mentioned 14 times in the 22 verses. In the story of Lot, earth is mentioned a grand total of 3 times in all 38 verses. And each time it looks like the usage refers to the entire Earth.

Gen 19:23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

Sunrise on earth.

Gen 19:31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

Lots daughters believe that God has destroyed the entire earth so they decide to sleep with their dad in order to continue the human species. This is not God saying he will destroy earth. Or a description of what is happening or going to happen. This is the interpretation of two bronze age young women.

Is that not strange?

How does the story of Lot describe the region to be destroyed?

The following words and phrases are used to describe what is to be destroyed -

this place, it, this city, Sodom and Gomorrah. It seems that the author was quite specific about the region. These three verses describe the region in many ways.

25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

28And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

29And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

It is not possible to interpret any of this to mean the whole earth.

The Lot verses are all very specific, the Noah verses can all be interpreted as the entire earth and there is no verse than is specific enough to think it was only regional.

I know that there are attempts to make the story fit with common sense or history. I am not trying to shoe horn a story into reality. I am just reading what the text says. I am an athiest and do not have any obligation to support my faith.

Yes the story is unrealistic if it was a global flood. That does not change the text. Yes there are verses later regarding certain animals and restrictions on animals that dont really fit in. That does not change text. Yes all the animals on earth could not fit onto the ark. That does not change the text. Yes, the idea of the entire earth being covered in water is silly. That does not change the text. The whole book is filled with stories that are implausibe to totally unbelieveable. That does not change the text.

Certain words or phrases that are repeated in a passage can have different meanings. This is not unusual. However, when the same word or phrase needs to be taken a very specific way in some verses, then a different very specific way in other verses in order to support a theory, it becomes a bit of a stretch. Particularly if the interpretation begins to defy common sense. And especially if the person peddling the unlikley interpretation has a very specific need for it to be interpreted in their strange way.

It could be taken as even more unlikely as soon as you read that the person pushing the story is IamJoseph. If that is the case, it is almost gauranteed to be strange and confusing journey that ultimately leads nowhere.

If you read the text without any bias or need for it to fit into your particular world view, then it is quite a simple text to read. If however, you have distinct bias or real fundamentalist need for it to fit into your world view, then it gets much harder.

It made fuck all sense when Alice went down the hole chasing a rabbit in a suit. I dont feel the need to attempt to twist that story until it could be realistic. I dont feel that need here. The text says what it says. Trying to imaginatively interpret the text so that it seems plausible in order to support your faith does not change the text.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson